When will BLF bring out their own Headlamp????

Id love a modern rear mounted 2-4x 18650 battery pack and a nicely heatsinked large led. Seems like almost all the companies going with the compact angled head format now.

Agro and you should look into mountain bike lights with the appropriate headband.

Most mountain bikers don’t want to carry more than two cells on their head.

I read that most of you want a headlamp that has high cri and high output.
What led is available that can do this?

The nichia 219c is not available anymore.
The Samsung LH351D is a nice options but reports say that it suffers from some green in the beam… Not really good for a high color quality light.

XPH50/50.2 90cri 3 step have very good light and hi efficiency.

Huh??
Or did you mean the 219B ?

That’s a 6v or 12v led unfortunately… would require a boost driver which is too expensive.

Both if I recall correctly. I thought I’ve read somewhere that they both are discontinued.

Difference in price between boost and buck driver is not very lage.

Wasn’t talking compared to a buck driver.

A boost driver with enough power in the limited size there is, is probably not possible.

Congrats on your 1234th post, Thijsco. :slight_smile:

Again linear driver? It is not serious.

say that to ZL , nitecore , imalent and so on. Or we again back to head rocket with 30000lm with 1ms to stepdown ?)

Skilhunt h03 with 18350 tube and Anduril and i’d be happy :smiley:
though i would be keen to see the Samsung 90 CRI emitter

Why even discuss the merits of spot versus flood? We should have both, with two separate optics! This would require a two-channel driver (or two drivers, independently operated?) Still, I can’t think of any reason not to do so. Even cheap headlights are doing that, some better than others.

High output versus low? That debate has been going on at BLF for a while and we will never get it resolved because some people have opinions that facts can’t compete with. Let’s define what the purpose of the headlamp is, then make it bright enough for that purpose. If it’s going to need long battery life, then a more efficient driver is recommended. For most drivers that means lower top output. But if it needs to accommodate seeing well into the distance, then more output is needed. If it has to do both, then a more expensive linear FET driver with high output capability and high efficiency even in low modes is the best choice. led4power has that, but not in two channel output AFAIK.

Note that high output and high efficiency don’t necessarily collide, depending on some design choices.
A buck + FET driver could be powerful and efficient and reasonably compact. Costlier than buck alone, but not much.
ADDED:
I see that you added led4power drivers to your post…
I think that the reason they are somewhat expensive is that they are unique top-end items.
Led4Power has invested a lot of effort into perfecting the design and you pay more for his time than for components.

But I may be wrong about it.

A flood and a spot would be very good indeed… Spot a nice cold white as gives better distance(least thats what I see) and a noce neutal white/nichia for flood would be friggin great…

Maybe. Nothing is set in stone so it all can change.

We don’t (at least I don’t) have the same amount of money to develop or make a light/driver.
And please don’t make assumptions that are based on nothing. No reason to do that.

@Jerommel, thanks! Didn’t notice it :smiley: .

It’s best to have both leds the same color. A nice neutral high cri white.

Summing up, it seems that there are some irresolvable differences between 2 groups of users: the ones who want versatility and those who want low weight.
The versatile people want 2 outputs. This alone ups the minimum light size quite a bit, but also makes 18350 compatibility trickier.

I don’t think we should try to satisfy both groups with a single light.
Would it be fine to split the efforts into 2 lights, 18650 with 2 optics and 18650+18350(+18500?) with 1 optic?
If yes, would it be good to actually concentrate on making one of them and leave the other for later?

I think it should stay with 18650……two optics would be nice but one is probably best…. Nice versatile lumens range based on majorities needs… same with actual tint… good runtimes at mid to low…

I suspect like me most of us use a mid setting and BOOST to high when required…

User programmable bit like the BLF a6 firmware(so far only experinced this firmware) would be fantastic.

Would love to see a good boost to around 3000 lumens. As can be very useful in my line of work. but not essential…

Would prefer a standard Headlamp setup where led is in center not an L-shape…

Battery behind LED as battery box I tend to find gets damaged(wire) far to easily.

USB charging would be a plus and an IP8 rating would be fantstic.

There may be un-resolvable differences of opinion, but the actual technical aspects are resolvable. Again, even cheap headlights in the market have two channels for spot and flood, and those use AAA or AA cells (or even button cells) and are smaller and much more compact than a 18650 headlamp. Making one that uses 18350 should be doable. Personally, I prefer 18650 for power density. For less than double the size you get triple the mAh capacity.

If you’ve looked at the led4power sales thread lately, you’d know that he has a 6x 3535 emitter MCPCB and optic that fits in the head of a C8. Multiple emitters does not have to mean a huge form factor of the light. All the 10180 cell keychain lights being made lately have TIR optics. Two of those side-by-side would still be plenty small for a headlamp. For me, it would be too fiddly for a headlamp if it’s too small. However, for the ones who want super-compact, maybe a second light that runs on a 16340 and has one optic would be a great choice.

All my assumptions based on facts)
There are 3 main driver types buck, boost, linear(+ fet) and combination.
Boost driver is small even for 1500-2000lm. At that power small host of headlamp will head up to pain level for minute.

The reason for two optics is to have one for spot and one for flood. Trying to do that with one optic would be tricky to say the least.

Tint will be impossible to please everyone, but from recent polls we’ve had on BLF, most peole will be happy with a neutral light in the 4000K to 5000K range.

BLF created firmware has far exceeded the A6 capabilities. Not saying the A6 firmware is bad. Just saying if you like that, you will LOVE what we have for you now! :heart_eyes:

IMHO, getting a headlamp up to 3000 lumens would be nearly impossible to do and very dangerous if it were accomplished, both because of heat. Really, it doesn’t make any sense at all to put 3000 lumens on your head. I have a very nice headlamp that has max output around ~1000lm and that is more than adequate. I say we aim for that, and make it moddable for those who want more lumens to change theirs later. That’s easily accomplished by making the LEDs accessible from a removable bezel, and make sure the MCPCBs and the driver are all ‘standard’ size/shape parts. While we’re at it, we can make sure the optics are ‘standard’ size/shape so those can be changed if someone wants both flood or both spot or something else.

I’m with you on the ‘standard’ headlamp shape instead of L-shape. :wink:

I’m also in agreement about battery behind the emitter, rather than a separate battery box, although I have no experience with the latter to know whether I’d actually like it or not. I have had devices with small/thin connecting wires and those wires do always end up being the weak point where breakage happens first.

I’m for USB charging, but to be honest, I’m not totally convinced of its usefulness. I would probably change batteries and keep going rather than stop using the headlamp long enough to get it charged.